Comparison of multimicrophone probe design and processing methods in measuring acoustic intensity

Three multimicrophone probe arrangements used to measure acoustic intensity are the four-microphone regular tetrahedral, the four-microphone orthogonal, and the six-microphone designs. Finite-sum and finite-difference processing methods can be used with such probes to estimate pressure and particle...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2014-05, Vol.135 (5), p.2797-2807
Main Authors: Wiederhold, Curtis P, Gee, Kent L, Blotter, Jonathan D, Sommerfeldt, Scott D, Giraud, Jarom H
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acoustics
Bias
Equipment Design
Models, Theoretical
Motion
Numerical Analysis, Computer-Assisted
Pressure
Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted
Sound
Transducers, Pressure
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Three multimicrophone probe arrangements used to measure acoustic intensity are the four-microphone regular tetrahedral, the four-microphone orthogonal, and the six-microphone designs. Finite-sum and finite-difference processing methods can be used with such probes to estimate pressure and particle velocity, respectively. A numerical analysis is performed to investigate the bias inherent in each combination of probe design and processing method. Probes consisting of matched point sensor microphones both embedded and not embedded on the surface of a rigid sphere are considered. Results are given for plane wave fields in terms of root-mean-square average bias and maximum bias as a function of angle of incidence. An experimental verification of the analysis model is described. Of the combinations considered and under the stated conditions, the orthogonal probe using the origin microphone for the pressure estimate is shown to have the lowest amount of intensity magnitude bias. Lowest intensity direction bias comes from the six-microphone probe using an average of the 15 intensity components calculated using all microphone pairs. Also discussed are how multimicrophone probes can advantageously use correction factors calculated from a numerical analysis and how the results of such an analysis depend on the chosen definition of the dimensionless frequency.
ISSN:0001-4966
1520-8524
DOI:10.1121/1.4871180